In R (Maughan) Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire,1¹ the Supreme Court resolved the important question of whether an inquest jury must be satisfied to the civil or criminal standard of proof before concluding that a person has committed suicide. In doing so, the Court had to assess the significance of a note to a form set out in a Schedule to a statutory instrument. The decision is interesting because of what the Court said about how such a note should be interpreted and because the Court was divided about the effect of the note in question. In addition, Lady Arden suggested that it was significant that the note was contained in a Schedule to the instrument, where she would not expect to find a change ‘of some consequence’. Her observations raise interesting questions about how Schedules are used in legislation and more generally about the relationship between drafting conventions and statutory interpretation. In this article, I describe the decision in Maughan and Lady Arden’s observations about the use of Schedules, before considering whether those observations are consistent with modern drafting practice.

中文翻译：

---

附表在立法中的使用：起草公约，宪法原则和法定解释

在R（Maughan）je下的牛津郡高级验尸官，1 ¹最高法院解决了一个重要问题，即在认定某人自杀之前，是否必须使调查陪审团符合民事或刑事举证标准。这样做，法院必须评估法定文书附表所列表格的注释的重要性。该裁决之所以有趣，是因为法院对应如何解释此类说明作出了怎样的解释，并且由于法院对有关说明的效力存在分歧。此外，雅顿夫人建议将票据包含在文书的附表中是很重要的，因为她不希望在那里发现“某些后果”的变化。她的观察提出了一些有趣的问题，即在立法中如何使用附表，更普遍地是关于起草公约与法定解释之间的关系。在本文中，我描述了Maughan和Lady Arden关于使用附表的意见，然后再考虑这些意见是否与现代起草惯例一致。